I am not sure why you're being so hostile, but it really is unnecessary. I watch enough football, but of course I am no expert. I don't do this for a living or anything.
Anyways, there are multiple football leagues out there, including fifty states with variations on rules.
Numbers have very little to do with eligibility.
Are you sure this is true. I am pretty confident it does. The NFL uses such a system. You even contradict this statement with a later statement that a "player with an ineligible number can declare himself eligible".
You don't have to have a set number of offensive linemen.
I have seen some leagues require at least 5. I believe the NCAA does. I am not sure why, if there is no requirement, why you do not see any less than five on a given day. It seems to me there is at least an implicit requirement of at least five. The reasons I started my post with A-11 is because it is one of the few examples of that not happening.
A tight end is simply a player who is an end on the line in a tight split with a tackle. His stance or number has absolutely nothing to do with it.
So it is his position? so if there is no requirements on the number of lineman, and neither numbers nor stance define eligibility, then how is he defined? Can you pass to a player that is the only other player beside the center in a three point stance with a lineman's number? Obviously, many would cry he is indelible, but if we use your assumptions, what makes him not a tight end if I had only a "line" of one?
If anyone can go downfield and receive a pass, you're going to have a massive increase in blind collisions and injuries. These rules are also in place to stop things like the flying wedge.
Okay, this is a policy reason for a rule, but what rule defines who is eligible or not? If it is not his number or how he lines up on the line of scrimmage, is it just the way he looks? "Oh that guy looks like a lineman so he is ineligible." Seems like a ridiculous subjective rule to me.
A two or three point stance never defined anything in terms of rules. Stop with the stance thing.
It seems like a sensible rule to me. That way you would have a bright line rule for who was eligible and who was not.
You clearly do not watch enough football if you say the game cannot be innovative, or your viewing is limited to the NFL. At the same time, making these suggested rule changes would essentially create an entirely new sport. Look at arena football. It is hardly recognizable to the classic game we know
If you have a requirement of a line of 5, you have tied up half of your offense. It seems like the only requirement to me should be a center who snaps to another person and the rest should be available for other things. Football is defined by its snap. It is was first distinguished it from rugby. It seems like if you only require that you will see more variation and strategy. What we have now is pretty much the same every play.
The title of this post starts with the "A-11 offense," yet you failed to mention the offense once.
The offense is what made me start questioning how we define eligible receivers, and why no one varies from the five man line.